“If you
really want to try to fight your ticket, read ‘Beat the Cops’ by Alex Carroll. I
ordered the book through Carroll’s Web site and read it. And for the first time
since seeing those blue and white lights I felt a glimmer of hope. The book
describes how the author got 16 tickets in a short time and was able to nullify
10 of them. He eventually wrote his book based on what he learned.

Even
more interesting was the writer’s perspective. Unlike traffic cops, who make
you feel like a serial killer for speeding, the book states that the majority
of tickets are issued to generate money for government municipalities.
Insurance companies benefit from traffic tickets, too, raising your rates when
your driving record shows a moving violation. The National Motorists Association
claims that costly radar guns are donated to police departments by some
insurance carriers to encourage them to write more speeding tickets.

Finally,
I was getting somewhere in this process. I called Carroll and told him the
details of my traffic stop.

“A
speeding ticket based on pacing is the hardest kind to beat,” he said.

“Pacing”
is when a police officer follows you and checks your speed by looking at his
speedometer. Speeding tickets can also be issued based on an officer
“estimating” your speed — this is nothing more than a cop watching you and
guessing how fast you are going.

According
to Carroll, there are three ways to beat a ticket:

1.The cop
doesn’t show up for court

2.You exploit a
technicality (such as a problem with the patrol car’s speedometer)

3.You have a
good argument for extenuating circumstances (you are speeding to get your
pregnant wife to the hospital)

This
reminded me of a story a friend told me. He was driving down a canyon road when
he struck a bird, which became lodged under the windshield wipers. His
daughters were in the car with him and they began screaming hysterically. He
sped up to dislodge the bird and, at that moment, was pulled over for speeding.
When he told this bizarre story to a judge, the ticket was dismissed.

My
pacing ticket didn’t fall easily into any of Carroll’s three categories. The
only technical angle to exploit was to prove that my speedometer was
malfunctioning. I spoke to Edmunds.com’s technical editor and he told me the
speedometer might in fact be wrong. My heart jumped. “I think it’s actually a
little low,” he said.

Another
tactic Carroll describes is to delay the trial to a time when the ticketing
officer can’t come to court. He suggested I call the station house where my
California Highway Patrol officer was based and find out when he was on
vacation, or what his days off were. This could be done by calling over a
number of days to find out when he was working. Then, when I extended my court
date, try to schedule it for a day that he wasn’t on duty.

Other
strategies might include requesting the officer’s notes written on the back of
the ticket hoping there is something there which is inaccurate.

I
decided to extend the date of my trial to increase the chances the officer
wouldn’t appear in court. As I attempted to do this I made an alarming
discovery. You can request only one postponement (called an “extension”) and it
must be requested 10 days before your trial date.This is stated in very small
print on the ticket, and it doesn’t really make sense. I mean, you’re more apt
to have a scheduling conflict arise at the last minute rather than 10 days
earlier. But this is the way the law is written so I was committed to the
assigned trial date.

However,
I still had one ace in the hole. If the ticketing officer did show up, and my
defense was falling on deaf ears, I could quote California Vehicle Code 41501
allowing me to attend traffic school. But — and this was important — I should
make a photocopy of the law because some judges weren’t familiar with it.

“If
it looks like you’re going to lose, say, ‘Your honor, I see that you’re very
busy here. I will cite CVC 41501 and take traffic school,’” Meyer told me.

With this
backup plan in mind I set about creating a reasonable sounding argument. But I
had to get busy. My court date was in three days.

On
the day of my trial for a speeding ticket I arrived outside traffic court in
West Los Angeles to find about 30 people milling around, waiting for the doors
to open. At the other end of the corridor, the police officers who had issued
the tickets had gathered. I noticed that these two groups didn’t mingle at all.

When
the doors finally opened (45 minutes late) we all filed into the courtroom. The
police officers sat on one side of the room while the ticketed motorists sat on
the other.

I had
prepared for my day in court in several ways:

·I
wore a coat and tie

·I had
read several books about presenting cases in traffic court

·I had
drawn a diagram of the area where the traffic stop occurred

·I had
copies of the California Vehicle Codes relevant to my case

The
only thing I was lacking was a compelling argument to prove that I wasn’t
speeding. I mean, I was speeding and there were no real technicalities I could
exploit to contradict that. My strategy was to wait until the last possible
moment, hoping the ticketing officer didn’t show up, and then, if he did make
an appearance, invoke California Vehicle Code 41501 stating my right to go to
traffic school.

The
judge finally appeared and told us that he would be reading off our names. If
we were prepared to proceed to trial, we should respond by saying, “Ready.” The
judge sternly warned us that this was our last chance to opt for traffic
school. If we went to trial and lost, there would be points on our license. If
we took traffic school now our sins would be forgiven.

Surveying
the room, the judge then said to one of his clerks, “You know, I saw a lot of
officers downstairs. Let them know we’re starting now.” The clerk disappeared.
This, and several other comments showed that the judge was trying to scare us
into taking traffic school rather than tying up the court with a trial.

The
judge then began reading our names. In several cases, the defendant answered,
“Ready,” and the police officers responded by saying, “The people are ready.”
The judge set these case files to one side for trial.But in over half of the
cases there was no response from the police. In other cases the police
responded by saying, “Officer doesn’t remember,” and the case was dismissed.

In
one case, the judge got no response when he called the police officer’s name.
He told his clerk, “Check downstairs. I know I saw the officer down there.”
This case file was set to one side, and the defender slouched in his seat,
muttering an obscenity. The people whose cases were dismissed usually said,
“All right!” and left the courtroom with a spring in their step.

When
my name was called I responded with a confident, “Ready!” The judge then called
out the police officer’s name. I held my breath. He called it again. No
response. The judge glanced over the case and said, “People unable to
proceed. Case dismissed. Watch your speed.” I left the courtroom feeling a load
was lifted, and joined the other celebrating ex-offenders in the corridor.

As I
walked back to my car I realized that I had won in a number of ways:

·The
charges
were dropped and my $77 fine would be returned (SInce Oct 2015,
Californians do not have to pay BEFORE court. Only if they lose, after.)

·No
points would be put on my license

·My
insurance premiums would not go up

·I
wouldn’t have to spend the money or time on traffic school

All
of these benefits were the result of taking the time to go to traffic court.

Several
days later a friend of mine had a different experience in court. So far this
year my friend has beat two tickets and lost two. The two tickets he
successfully challenged were for speeding based on radar and were given to him
by California Highway Patrol; the two he lost were from city police departments
for non-speeding moving violations. In this particular case he was ticketed for
failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He went to court in West Los
Angeles and waited for the entire afternoon for the chance to argue his case.

My
friend reported that the judge in his courtroom was like a flamboyant game show
host. When he ruled in favor of the driver, he seemed to share in the
excitement of the moment by boisterously proclaiming, “Looks like you won’t be
going to traffic school! And we’ll even be mailing you your money back!” But
when he ruled against the motorist he became sarcastic and abrupt.

The
order of the events in the trials were:

1.The officer
described the circumstances under which he issued the ticket

2.The judge
asked the officer follow-up questions about the case

3.The defendant
told his or her side of the story

4.The judge
questioned the defendant and referred further questions to the officer

In
some cases, the defendant was allowed to tell his story only to discover that
the officer had shot a video of the traffic stop. These cases always went
against the driver.

When
my friend was stopped he had asked the police officer: “Are you saying that I
blew off the stop sign completely?” The officer said, “No.You just rolled
through it.” But in court the cop told a different story.

The
officer described the location where he was parked and stated that he had an
unobstructed view of the intersection. He then told the judge that my friend
had gone through the stop sign at 15 mph. The judge then asked, “What’s the
error factor in your speed estimation certification?” The officer said it was
“plus or minus 3 mph.”

When
it came time to issue a ruling, this judge used this fact against my friend. He
said, “Assume for a minute that the officer had been having a bad day. That
still means you were going at least 9 mph. Suppose he was having a really,
really bad day. That still means you were going 6 miles an hour.”

My
friend felt that he had learned an important lesson from this trip to court.
Since the police officer presents his side of the story first, you should try
to anticipate what he will say and create your strategy accordingly. Clearly,
this officer had presented what he thought would be an ironclad story to refute
someone trying to say that they didn’t “roll” through the intersection. If he
had said that my friend had gone through the intersection at 5 mph without
stopping, that 3 mph variation in his speed estimation certification would be
cutting it pretty close.

This
brought up another important point. Walter Meyer, a traffic school instructor
and freelance writer who lives in San Diego, Calif., said that if the case
hinges on your word versus the police officer, the judge will usually rule in
favor of the officer. This is because police officers are perceived as experts
in traffic rules. Furthermore, Meyer said, “The judge knows that he can walk
out the door of the courthouse and find a dozen people breaking the traffic
laws.” This leads to an attitude of “guilty until proven innocent” — at least in
traffic court.

This
was echoed by my friend who had some advice for anyone going to try his or her
case in traffic court: “Make sure your case is based on concrete evidence and
don’t rely strictly on what the officer said at the time of the traffic stop.
Don’t just go in there and say, ‘I didn’t do it.’”

For
example, one woman who successfully challenged her ticket convinced the judge
that the stop sign she supposedly ran was resting on a concrete pylon that was
too low to see. She brought photos to court to show the judge and her case was
dismissed.

Although
my case was dismissed, I still had one important step. Experts advise that you
contact the DMV and get a copy of your driving record to make sure your
dismissed case hasn’t inadvertently wound up on your license. While the
clerical error is the court’s fault, you could be the one spending a night in
jail.

As my
friend and I discussed our experiences we agreed that there was very little
reason not to go to traffic court. There was some chance that the officer
wouldn’t show up and your case would be dismissed. If the officer did appear,
you could always opt for traffic school at the last minute. Furthermore, some
speeding tickets (most notably radar tickets) can be challenged on a
technicality. Other tickets can be dismissed by presenting evidence such as
diagrams or photographs.

It’s
important to take a larger view of this whole subject. The police write many
tickets knowing that the motorist will simply pay their fine by mail hoping to
put the whole incident behind them. Other offenders will choose traffic school.
Only a small group of motorists will ask for a trial in traffic court. And an
even smaller number will actually go to trial.

Clearly,
if everyone went to traffic court, the system would become overburdened and
collapse. So, if you feel your ticket was unwarranted, ask for your day in
court — you could walk out a winner.